TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes criminal proceeding for lack of offense, criticizes improper application of legal section</h1> <h3>M.S. UNNIKRISHNAN @ M.S. UNIKRISHNAN Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND</h3> M.S. UNNIKRISHNAN @ M.S. UNIKRISHNAN Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND - 2020 (41) G. S. T. L. 452 (Jhar.) Issues Involved:1. Quashing of criminal proceedings including FIR.2. Alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).3. False statement to Revenue Authorities.4. Application of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).5. Defamation and loss of business reputation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Including FIR:The petitioner sought to quash the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR of Sector 4 Police Station Case No. 86 of 2018, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bokaro. The court found that the allegations did not prima facie constitute any offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Thus, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed.2. Alleged Offences Under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC:The court examined the allegations under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) IPC. It was found that:- Section 420 IPC requires cheating, dishonest inducement to deliver property, and mens rea at the time of inducement. The court noted that there was no allegation of delivering any property or altering any security. The element of deception vis-à-vis the complainant was missing.- Section 406 IPC pertains to criminal breach of trust, which involves being entrusted with property and dishonestly misappropriating it. The court found no evidence that the petitioner was entrusted with any property by the complainant or misappropriated any property.3. False Statement to Revenue Authorities:The petitioner allegedly made false statements to the Revenue Authorities to save Cenvat, which led to penalties by the Revenue Authorities. The court noted that the Revenue Authorities had already penalized the petitioner’s company for this act. The court concluded that this act did not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust under the IPC.4. Application of Section 156(3) of the CrPC:The court highlighted the improper application of Section 156(3) CrPC by the Magistrate. The order referring the complaint under Section 156(3) was non-speaking and did not comply with the pre-conditions set forth in the Supreme Court judgments (Priyanka Srivastava & Another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others). The court emphasized that applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by an affidavit and the Magistrate should apply their mind before directing the registration of an FIR.5. Defamation and Loss of Business Reputation:The complainant alleged that the false statements by the petitioner led to defamation and loss of business reputation, seeking Rs. 3 crore for defamation and Rs. 10 lakh as recovery. The court found that the allegations of defamation and mental harassment due to loss of business did not attract the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court concluded that these allegations were civil in nature and did not constitute a criminal offence.Conclusion:The court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR, as the allegations did not prima facie constitute any offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court also criticized the improper application of Section 156(3) CrPC and emphasized the need for judicial scrutiny and adherence to procedural requirements in such cases.
TaxTMI 